9/4/2008

Andrew “Glutes” Sullivan (Motto: “To see what is up one’s ass needs a constant struggle”) continues to highlight the slipshod vetting of Sarah Palin with this critical piece of information: Wasilla has a meth problem. [UPDATE: Actually, that’s another lie by Sullivan. The truth is that the region where Wasilla is located has one. I considered the allegation to be so trivial that I didn’t even click Sullivan’s link to check his facts. That’ll learn me.]

How could the McCain campaign have missed this?

Also, I hope everyone caught Sully’s insightful live-blogging of the Sarah Palin speech last night. Some actual excerpts, which I swear I am not making up:

10.47 pm. She has this weird tick of scrunching up her face to make a forceful point. Kinda Tracy Flicky.

It is simply beyond me how the McCain camp could have picked this face-scrunching, lip-curling mother of spawn who poke special needs children in the eye, and former mayor of a town where people use drugs. Where’s the vetting? Thank God for Andrew Sullivan and his unwavering honesty!

P.S. Sullivan has really been on Palin’s case for seeking money for the Bridge to Nowhere and then spending it on something else. Indeed: how dare someone seek money for one purpose, and then suddenly decide not to use it for that purpose. Why, it would be almost like . . . holding a pledge drive for your blog, raking in six figures, and then going on a blog hiatus!

P.P.S. Sarah Palin can give a great speech, but how is she without a teleprompter? Here’s a recent interview. Judge for yourself.

44 Responses to “Sully Continues the Vetting”

Thank you for pointing out what I’ve been saying for years now regarding Sully – his blog drive was one of the most hypocritical events I’ve seen in the short history of this medium. I stopped reading him after that fiasco – and I suggest everyone else do likewise (unless the entertainment value is just too good to pass up).

It’s to Palin’s discredit that in her speech she repeated her false “thanks, but no thanks,” claim about refusing federal money for the bridge. She took all the money Congress was likely to give her.

Palin spent the Bridge to Nowhere money on other projects because federal funding was insufficent to build the bridge. By her own account, the $398 million bridge had a $329 million funding shortfall, and Congress was unlikely to make up the gap. Palin was willing to spend Congress’ money to make up that shortfall, but not Alaska’s. And that money was not sent back to Congress, but redirected to other projects in Alaska — including an access road to the bridge that won’t be built.

Fiscal conservatives, if they wish to be consistent, should not condone or excuse such conduct.

I thought his liveblog was a bit anemic, but entertaining. I supposed he could have gone all fanboi like you, and just gurgled “she’s really, really really good” . . . or stood around clapping for a full five minutes at the very sight of her, before she said a word, like the delegates at the convention did.

Of course, Palin’s is the only convention speech I’ve actually watched (at either convention — I have no patience for sermons to the converted). So maybe she really was amazing compared to the rest of the speeches. If so, I’m even more glad I skipped them all.

I do agree with you that Sullivan’s being highly disingenuous about his, and the Democrats, feelings regarding Palin. They don’t care about the vetting process. The Democrats see her as a threat to what should have been a change vs. establishment dynamic. And they should.

But the Democrats themselves started the shift in the dynamic, by picking Biden to make the Obama ticket look more stable and established. They’ve gotten what they wished for — and the McCain ticket is now the new and “changy” platform.

Hey, she did it last night without the teleprompter! At least that’s what’s being reported here in Chicago this morning. Evidently the teleprompter didn’t slow down for all of the extended applauses and raced ahead. Therefore, from about 1/3 to 1/2 way through the speech, SHE WAS ON HER OWN! NO PROMPTER!!! How about that? The most important speech of your political career with all the world watching and the liberals and the liberal media hoping and praying that you’ll fall flat on your face and you pull off that GREAT speech without the teleprompter!!! How awesome is that. That lady is one cool cucumber. Bring it on lefties, we got ourselves a Champ, a champ I tell you. McCain-Palin in a landslide, a landslide. One commment I really liked was this: She stuck a knife in Obama with a smile on her face!

P.P.P.S. – RedState says she was w/o the prompter for last half of last night’s speech. Apparently the thing kept scrolling through applause breaks making it useless once red meat started. Nice riffing

Bradley – By other accounts, Palin changed her mind DURING the gubernatorial campaign as the estimated cost of the project rose from the $200 million range to the $400 million range, as most sane politicians would. Quotes are out there of her saying in 2006 that other alternatives should be considered, e.g., ferry service. The bridge earmark was defeated to my understanding, but Congress allocated Alaska money in any event to be used as they saw fit. Is there something nefarious in her not using it for a boondoggle of a bridge project?

I have heard of one little Andrew who throws temper tantrums and like all little temper tantrum throwers he regularly needs to be given a swat on his diapered behind and sent to his little bed for a timeout.

BJF @ #7…
I’ve got to piggy-back on daleyrocks @ #13.
It is also my understanding that the earmark was changed from a designated appropriation, to one that was for “descretionary spending”.
If they give you the choice, and you take it; why would you have to give the money back when you can find more suitable uses for it?

Daleyrocks,Is there something nefarious in her not using it for a boondoggle of a bridge project?

Not at all. But what Palin says now contradicts what she said at the time she canceled the project, in her own press release. Palin said the $398 million bridge had a $329 million funding shortfall, and Congress was not inclined to make up the gap.

To build the bridge in light of the $329 million funding gap, Palin would have had to use Alaska’s money. Instead, she took the money Congress did approve, and spent it on other projects. Congress never got that money back. Nothing nefarious in that, but nothing admirable either. Just politics as usual.

Also, Palin said in her press release, “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”

Such Fairweather Friends, you Conservatives! When he was supporting your little Iraq war you just loved him. Now that he doesn’t like the way it’s turned out (“Buyer’s Remorse” it’s called) and his isn’t enchanted with Little Mrs. Yup-Yup you want to smack him.

Needless to say I’ve never stopped smacking him — but for very different reasons.

To build the bridge in light of the $329 million funding gap, Palin would have had to use Alaska’s money. Instead, she took the money Congress did approve, and spent it on other projects. Congress never got that money back. Nothing nefarious in that, but nothing admirable either. Just politics as usual.

OK. I clicked the link, and I .:*gulp*:. can’t muster a counterargument. An Obamabot troll was banging away on this point last night on another thread. It hurts a little, because after the smears, lies, and hypocritical sexism, I wanted things to be perfect, and they nearly were.

IMHO, she should backtrack/clarify on “Thanks, but no thanks,” and in a hurry.

1. I like the scrunchy facial expressions for the same reason I like the finger-pointing mannerisms. She seems like a real person rather than some focus tested drone. Among my hopes for a Sarah Palin candidacy is an end to the neutered thumb-into-bent-index-figure gesture. If we are lucky enough, maybe she can kill the stupid little handchop as well.

If McCain is smart, and so far he seems to be, he’ll tell the advisors they’d better not dare try to sandpaper the “rough edges” away.

2 I watched the debate with a friend who is as uninterested in politics as I am the opposite. After the second facial scrunch, she said Sarah Palin looks like Peggy Hill, from King of the Hill. She meant it in a good way, too.

I think normal people finally have someone to root for in this race.

3. My friend also made it clear that we men have to be careful in how we discuss Palin. Apparently, we are being too effusive, and risk a different kind of backlash from women. My mother, who plans to vote Palin, echoed the same thought.

Figures. After years of hearing that men would never vote for a woman because we are too sexist, I’ll spend the next few months hearing I only support Palin because I’m a man. After hearing what John McCain went through, I guess the least I can do is take this hit for the team.

Bradley – I don’t understand your logic or objection. She decides a bridge that has doubled in cost from its original estimate is not the best way to spend taxpayers’ or Washington’s money and that is a bad thing? Then she keeps money that Washington has specifically told Alaska they can use to spend at their discretion, which she appears to know how to use and that is another bad thing?

Are you having a bad day?

Two ‘Bridges to Nowhere’ Tumble Down in Congress
By CARL HULSE
Published: November 17, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 – Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party’s reputation for fiscal austerity.

Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as “bridges to nowhere” because of the remote territory and small populations involved.

The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose.

Bradley…
If the “Bridge” is the only inconsistency that you can find in what Gov. Palin has done in her elected life, you are ignoring the Good, in search of the Perfect.
Not a productive endeavor, that.
If you can build a case against her for being a mealy-mouthed, run-of-the-mill pol, be our guest.
Then, you can become an Obama supporter, right?

Bradley – I don’t understand your logic or objection. She decides a bridge that has doubled in cost from its original estimate is not the best way to spend taxpayers’ or Washington’s money and that is a bad thing? Then she keeps money that Washington has specifically told Alaska they can use to spend at their discretion, which she appears to know how to use and that is another bad thing?

Are you having a bad day?

From rhe NY Times

November 17, 2005
Two ‘Bridges to Nowhere’ Tumble Down in Congress
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 – Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party’s reputation for fiscal austerity.

Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as “bridges to nowhere” because of the remote territory and small populations involved.

The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose.

Lawmakers said widespread news coverage had turned the bridges, near Ketchikan and Anchorage, into symbols of Congressional excess. Some members of Congress said they got more questions at town meetings about the bridges than about the new Medicare drug program. A Republican pollster warned that the projects were a political albatross.

“You can’t defend it,” said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, one of the conservatives who have been trying to kill not just the bridge project but also almost 6,000 other pet projects included in the $286 billion highway bill approved earlier this year.

Mr. Flake and others said outrage over the highway spending in general and the bridges in particular was also complicating Republican efforts to advance a broad package of $50 billion in spending cuts over five years, with lawmakers anxious about cuts to Medicaid and food stamps saying it was hard to back those proposals if the bridges got money. But House leaders said they intended to win final approval of that plan this week.

As they finished up the bill covering 2006 spending for transportation, Treasury and housing programs, negotiators agreed that the provision requiring the money for the bridges – known as an earmark – had to go.

“Frankly we just thought we could not approve the project in good faith,” said Representative Joe Knollenberg, Republican of Michigan, who is chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that controls transportation spending.

The bridges – a mile-long, 200-foot-high bridge connecting Ketchikan to a sparsely populated island and regional airport and a second one linking Anchorage to a port nearly two miles across an inlet – have been aggressively defended by Alaskan lawmakers, who said the projects would promote growth. They complained that their state had been maligned and were able to defeat a move in the Senate to direct the bridge money to hurricane relief.

Senator Ted Stevens, a powerful Republican from Alaska who had threatened to resign had the Senate shifted the money to the Gulf Coast, said Wednesday that he was resigned to the elimination of the requirement that the money go to the bridges.

“While I am not happy with it, I think that under the circumstance it was the best we could expect because of the publicity that came with the Sunday supplements and whatever,” he said. “Everybody is talking about what to do about our bridges.”

Budget watchdog groups celebrated the reversal. “Instead of forcing taxpayers to buy a pair of boneheaded bridges, money would be freed up for much more important Alaskan transportation priorities,” said Jill Lancelot, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Representative Flake of Arizona, who wants a 10 percent across-the-board cut in the highway bill, said he and other lawmakers in the House and Senate would continue to press for all of the earmarks in the bill to be eliminated.

“We ought to do away with $24 billion worth, not just one bridge,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.

The action on the bridges came as the House and the Senate attended to a batch of spending, tax and budget measures before heading for a Thanksgiving break.

In the House, the Republican leadership expressed confidence that it could win approval of spending cuts this week. Passage of the cuts has eluded them for weeks because of resistance from moderates who are uneasy with the cuts and conservatives who have grumbled about concessions made to win moderate votes.

“We are just tying up the loose ends,” said Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, chairwoman of the House Republican Conference.

The leadership would not predict when it would bring the budget plan to the floor, though Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the acting majority leader, said the House would remain through the weekend if necessary to complete its work.

The House and the Senate also began advancing separate tax bills that were drawing criticism from Democrats for providing tax breaks for the more affluent while adding to the deficit at the same time spending cuts were being aimed at programs for the poor. Republicans dismissed that assertion and said inaction on taxes would allow rates that had been lowered in recent years to snap back.

“I think it is important to put these tax policies out there and do our best to make the truthful case that anything short of this would be a tax increase,” said Mr. Blunt as the Senate began debating its $60 billion tax plan, which differs in significant respects from the proposal of nearly $57 billion emerging in the House.

Congress is also trying to dispose of its remaining spending bills, including the transportation measure from which the bridges were removed.

On Wednesday, the Senate sent the president a $58 billion measure covering the Commerce, Justice and State Departments as well as science programs. A stopgap measure covering federal spending is due to expire Friday but will probably be extended while Congress seeks to finish work on the bills.

> Andrew “Glutes” Sullivan (Motto: “To see what is up one’s ass needs a constant struggle”) continues to highlight the slipshod vetting of Sarah Palin with this critical piece of information: Wasilla has a meth problem.

Bradley is on his tiny little hobbyhorse and we should let him alone. Someday, he may notice the rest of the story.

The meth problem in rural Alaska, and not just Wasilla which is an upscale suburb of Anchorage, was what she wanted to put Monegan in charge of. She decided he was not cut out for the DPS and was going to appoint him instead to the alcoholic beverage commission, which also does drug enforcement. He turned it down and has thrown his lot in with her enemies in the Legislature.

The trooper story will blow away in spite of the best efforts of the hack the Democrats put in charge of the “investigation.” The phrase “tasered his 11-year-old stepson” should do it.

Bradley Filkes — re the BTNW. She never said she didn’t take the money. She said she decided to not waste the money on the BTNW. The money was reprogrammed for other infrastructure needs. She said that if they — Alaska — decided they wanted a bridge, they would build it themselves for less money as a state project.

In the linked interview with Maria Econo-Babe Bartiromo, Sarah Veep-Babe Palin did really fine without a teleprompter. Of course, answering questions without a teleprompter is far different from making a speech without one.

I remember that money drive by Sullivan. That was back in the days when Sullivan was an interesting person to listen to. My respect for him took a huge hit when he scampered off on holiday after his begging had paid off big time.

I remember his whining during the drive that without that money he couldn’t keep blogging and he would have to quit. So his fans sent him the money, and he promptly stopped blogging! That was really low of Sullivan.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.